The size and content of the Ukraine-UAE arms deal are yet to be confirmed, and who is paying for it, but Kiev will certainly play up its symbolic significance, security analyst Charles Shoebridge told RT.

Ukraine has signed a weapons supply agreement with the United Arab Emirates.

RT:Kiev officials have been asking the EU
and the US for weapons, but these countries have been too
cautious to provide. Why is it different with the UAE?

Charles Shoebridge: Well, we really need to
exercise at this stage at least some caution with this; not with
the fact that this is very new to us, of course it is, especially
for Ukraine, because they’ve been really scrambling around in
effect, what often appears to be, desperation to have at least
one of the EU or NATO or other powers announce that they will
give Ukraine weapons for use down in the south east part against
the separatist rebels. So it may be that this is quite an
insignificant deal in terms of perhaps its size and scale,
because certainly no details as far as I’m aware of have yet been
announced. It could be quite a substantial arms deal or it could
be something that amounts to something that’s just really very
symbolic and actually will have no effect on the battlefield
itself. And so consequently we can see that certainly without
knowing the details of what the arms deal such as announced by
Ukraine actually comprises, it’s really at the current stage more
of political importance,…of symbolic importance, so that
Poroshenko, as his spokesman has done today, can announce this as
if it strengthens Ukraine’s hands no doubt in the negotiations
that lie in the weeks and months ahead.

RT:Ukraine is in a deep economic crisis
right now. How is it going to pay for the weapons?

CS: Well, it’s a very good point of course. And
one can only imagine that again if it’s a substantial shipment of
arms … it does beg the question where the finance will come from.
Let’s not forget that the EU and the US are to some extent not
anything like as far as the Ukrainian government would like, but
they are to some extent propping up the Ukraine economy with
loans and indeed with grants. And it may be that some of that has
been put aside for training… You mentioned earlier that the UK
and we know the US is going to send troops … to Ukraine to train
the Ukrainian forces in one way or another…The US and UK have
said that they would provide non-lethal equipment. This is…money
coming from their tax payers to go to the Ukrainian government. I
don’t think there’s much question that Ukraine is not going to be
in a position to pay for anything substantial by itself, but it
really does remain to be seen what actually this comprises, if
anything at all, because my understanding is up to now the UAE
itself, which one might think is unusual, also hasn’t as far as
I’m aware confirmed what Ukraine is saying about this deal, that
it’s actually happened.

RT:President Poroshenko said that the kind
of equipment he's going to buy is defensive to protect Ukraine’s
sovereignty. Is that the case do you think? Is this equipment
really going to be for defensive use only?

CS: A lot depends on what the quantities are and
what the actual equipment is, but also it’s not just simply a
matter of course and this is something I think a lot of Western
politicians and journalists who have been urging that Ukraine is
sent advanced weaponry don’t seem to realize, that you can’t
simply hand over weapons that people need to be properly trained
in their use. There needs to be proper logistical backup in terms
of technical support and resupply, for example, of missiles. And
also the majority of this kind of equipment it’s of military
purpose therefore it can be used pretty much for offensive or
defensive uses. For example, Poroshenko has mentioned anti-tank
weapons. That sounds defensive, but of course anti-tank weapons
can also be used when you are advancing on the other side’s armor
and also on fixed positions. This is just one example. Again a
question will arise with this UAE deal if indeed it has happened
as claimed, what these weapons are, whether they are coming from
the UAE which doesn’t have a small defense industry itself or
whether they are actually being shipped via the UAE from perhaps
UK, France or the US which perhaps would be a way of the US and
UK to supply weapons to Ukraine in a way that might be otherwise
deniable. Much remains to be seen with this deal as to what the
actual scale of it is, who is paying for it and also what it
actually comprises. And it’s not until we know really all of
those things that we can properly assess its significance other
than its symbolic significance which of course Ukraine is keen to
play up.

RT:The US State Secretary John Kerry let
slip that “We have committed over 118 million dollars in arming…
not arming… training and equipment but some of it… you know the
eye of the beholder will determine the arming…” Was it a slip of
the tongue or did he give out way too much than he needed
to?

CS: Well of course Kerry’s known for his
slip-ups from time to time and it may be that the slip-up was
deliberate to give the impression that Ukraine is receiving more
support than it actually may be. But really what Kerry says there
emphasizes the points I just made. When he says “it’s in the eye
of the beholder” it’s exactly what I was just saying that weapons
can be called “defensive” but of course they can be using in an
offensive capacity as well. It was really very much the same when
the US and the UK supplied so-called non-lethal equipment to
Syria’s rebels. On that occasion they supplied body armor,
vehicles and high technology secure communications equipment. All
of those things can be used in an offensive manner in offensive
operations not only against armed groups but also against
civilians. And we’ve seen abuses on both sides of this conflict
in Ukraine but particularly we’ve seen the Ukrainian government
criticized by journalists on the ground as well as by human
rights groups for the use of, for example, heavy weapons against
civilian areas. And there is nothing to suggest that this kind of
so-called defensive equipment wouldn’t also put civilians at risk
to some degree or another, but I do think that the more Ukraine
looks forward to the weeks and months ahead, the more it’s got to
position itself as having strong military backers and therefore
that plays into Poroshenko’s hands in this respect in terms of a
negotiation strategy with the rebels at some future point, that
Kerry is coming out with what seem to be slip-ups but what might
suggest that actually Ukraine may in the future be in a stronger
position militarily than it has been up to now. The facts of
course remain to be seen.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.